We cannot accurately predict the weather a week in advance, How can we have faith in climate predictions?

Because with climate prediction you can't really be wrong. If your prediction SEEMS wrong, you can just claim it's the weather and not climate.

You can easily notice that all of the warmer answers are BS crap that they think they can fool everyone with. They act as if it is easier to predict the climate 100 years from now, than the weather 24 hours from now. Clearly this is stupidity in action. The overall climate is affected by many things that we have no current way of measuring, including changes to the ocean currents. Now their thought is that they can use a physical model instead of a statistical model. Their logic for this, is that if the amount of energy going in and going out of the system is known, then the overall effect to the temps will also be known. I actually agree with this point, but disagree that they are known. they are currently missing 30% of the heat. They don't know where it went! This is why a statistical model is appropriate. There is a large amount of uncertainty, and statistical models quantify uncertainty. The reason they do not like statistical models is that they are well aware that if they look at the problem using a statistical model, that the uncertainty is high enough that warming may not even be shown. They do not know the effects of clouds, (even whether or not they are negative or positive feedbacks. They do not know the effect of the oceans. They are simply guessing at the temperature sensitivity to CO2, based upon paleoclimate data, that 1.) Assumes all correlation is causation 2.) Does not even match with current temp records The only reason that the scientists are claiming the certainty that they are claiming is that they KNOW that no one wants to pay a scientist to say "I don't know". They are in a tough position, in which the world is asking them for answers and they are giving their best guesses. THey do not want to look stupid by admitting that it is their best guess. While this works for most people, SOme people who know what is going on, think it is absolutely foolish to pretend as if your guesses are actually reality. I, What are your qualifications? Clearly the poster never said anything about denying AGW, and most of your answer clearly does not address the question. So perhaps one of the things you might want to add to your qualifications to respond would be at least a second grade level of reading comprehension, cause you are certainly not demonstrating this.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/221636...

"Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different."

"Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time -- generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is a challenge -- to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness -- but the latter is routine and reliable."

"This is not to say it's easy to predict climate changes. But seizing on meteorologists' failures to cast doubt on a climate model's 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance."

This section is on global warming. You're confusing it with weather.

When untra-conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson volunteer to be in Al Gore's public service announcements, you know that we have an unusual issue with absolutely no political division:

"Some advertisements will feature bipartisan pairs, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton with Pat Robertson and Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with former GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_us/go...

The broad understanding that global warming is happening and that it is not a political issue is reflected in detailed polls:

"Seven out of ten Americans surveyed believe that global warming is probably happening. Seventy-one percent say that global warming is probably happening, 6 percent believe it is probably not happening, and 23 percent are unsure. This includes an 81-to-3 percent margin among Democrats, a 75-to-4 percent margin among independents, and a 56-to-13 percent margin among Republicans."

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/content.cfm?cont...

There's an interesting correllation that the same percentage of people don't believe that the Apollo landings happened:

"A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine, while 6 percent did not..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_h...

Apparently about 5-6% of population are unable to grasp science and would rather believe in a government plot. Thank goodness the United States is a republic and not a direct democracy, where ignorant and paranoid people like that could actually have some say in how the country is run.

Weather - climate.

The anti science brigade needs to understand the difference.

I can't tell you what the temperature in my area will be on July 8th, but I can confidently tell you that it will be warmer (by a statistically significant amount) than December 14th. That's the difference between weather and climate.

Short-term weather related events are very chaotic, but July is always warmer than December. Climate is the average of weather in a region over a 30 year period. The chaos and noise isn't a factor in long-term shifts.

Meteorology and climatology are completely different. It's easier to predict long-term trends than short-term variations.

One analogy I like to use is gambling. On any given bet or over any given day, you have no idea if you'll come out with more or less money than you started with. But if you gamble in the casinos long enough, over the long run you can be sure you'll end up losing money.

Same thing with the stock market. There are tons of factors which make it unpredictable on a daily or weekly or even monthly basis. But in the long term, you know it's going to go up.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:s...

Also, scientists have been modelling warming since the late 1980s. So far their models have been very accurate:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rahmstor...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/recent-clim...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

'Lack of substantial doubt

In its strongest form, the term is used to assert that on a given question scientists within a particular field of science have reached an agreement of rational opinion without substantial doubt, through a process of experimentation and peer review.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Also the green house gas that is supposed to caused GW. The gas is not there go measure it.

you can't predict mother nature